Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

[Belz...]

Lol. Maybe you should read the rest of what I wrote, or is that too difficult and requires too much brain matter?

What I quoted was the entirety of your post.

 

[The Greater Fool]

And for very good reason: Because we understand gravity, and can predict, very precisely, what its effects will be for any given situation.

As noted trillions of times in this thread, we test this dozens of times a day, and our predictions are always borne out.

Or maybe those numbers are reversed.

I can only interpret this as agreement.

Are you seriously asking me why we don't believe there's a force as strong and widespread as gravity that we haven't noticed because its behaviour violates the most basic principles of physics?

No, I am asking what I asked. Again, we account for gravity because we see and feel it at our scale, we've identified the pattern, it nor it's affects are seen at a quantum level. Does QFT rule out particles comparable in size, quantity, with an effect we haven't identified? Does it rule out a secondary effect that we haven't identified, that we have no reason to account for it?

What, in terms of QFT, is a "secondary effect"? You have interactions. Or you don't.

Secondary effects are interactions of particles. For gravity/gravitons, we understand what we consider the primary effect / interaction (we have not seen this interaction), does QFT allow that there are additional (secondary) effects / interactions that we have yet to identify or observe?

And in all this talk of patterns, as I noted earlier, we've built a pattern detector the size of a city, and it's been operating 24 hours a day for decades. Guess what? We haven't seen those patterns because they don't exist.

That detector has not detected gravitons, either.

 

[PixyMisa]

I can only interpret this as agreement.

Agreement with what? Carroll dismissed gravity as a cause of hypothetical nonsense for excellent and well-explained reasons.

No, I am asking what I asked. Again, we account for gravity because we see and feel it at our scale, we've identified the pattern, it nor it's affects are seen at a quantum level. Does QFT rule out particles comparable in size, quantity, with an effect we haven't identified?

So you ARE asking me why we don't believe there's a force as strong and widespread as gravity that we haven't noticed because its behaviour violates the most basic principles of physics.

The answer is, if such a force existed, our Universe would be radically different. It would be utterly impossible to miss, just as it is utterly impossible to miss the existence of gravity. Except in the sense that fish don't spend much time thinking about water.

Secondary effects are interactions of particles.

That's a primary effect.

That detector has not detected gravitons, either.

It's a pattern detector, not a particle detector. As I said, we don't detect these patterns of yours because those patterns do not exist.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Agreement with what? Carroll dismissed gravity as a cause of hypothetical nonsense for excellent and well-explained reasons.

You effectively restated my points. There was nothing to disagree with, to wit:

Gravity (theoretical gravitons) are such a particle and effect. It is only accounted for in QFT because we see the pattern of the effects at our scale. Carroll dismissed gravity early in his presentation.

And for very good reason: Because we understand gravity, and can predict, very precisely, what its effects will be for any given situation.

As noted trillions of times in this thread, we test this dozens of times a day, and our predictions are always borne out.

Do point out the disagreement.

So you ARE asking me why we don't believe there's a force as strong and widespread as gravity that we haven't noticed because its behaviour violates the most basic principles of physics.

I've asked the question twice. It's obvious you choose not to answer. Thanks.

The answer is, if such a force existed, our Universe would be radically different. It would be utterly impossible to miss, just as it is utterly impossible to miss the existence of gravity. Except in the sense that fish don't spend much time thinking about water.

An answer of sorts, though nonsensical.

Why would an interaction we can't identify (which means it IS happening now, in THIS universe) change how the universe is working? Again, just because we haven't identified it doesn't mean it's not there.

That's a primary effect.

Pedantry, great.

pri·mar·y (adj.) 1. First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.
sec·ond·ar·y (adj.) 1. a. Of the second rank; not primary.

It's a pattern detector, not a particle detector. As I said, we don't detect these patterns of yours because those patterns do not exist.

Fine. Demonstrate that it can, IN FACT, detect every possible pattern. I'll accept a link that states such, with mathematical proof.

 

[Snorkio]

Those are two different things.

One the one hand, it is always valid to rotate the Feynman diagram by 90 degrees to predict a second interaction.

On the other hand, the fact that the one interaction implies the other doesn't mean that either one is detectable as an individual interaction.

Or another explanation is that gravitons may not exist at all, since it is a hypothetical particle and to my knowledge, no one has yet worked out a quantum theory for gravity as described by GR. So we would not necessarily ever seen any particles as a result of an interaction with a fundamental force which is different from the other quantized forces, in which case, Carroll's assertion isn't a complete picture, in fact, he does explicitly say interactions (34m 49s) of fermions and bosons are understood, but that assumes all forces would be part of the Standard Model (or an extension of it), which as gravity currently shows is not necessarily the case.

Are we even detecting any "missing energy" that should be there that is going into creating this gravitons which we cannot detect?

Basically, yes.

So my point was that there could be various particles and or forces that we are indeed creating but are not detecting, whether from being weak, or perhaps a neutrally charged particle that we're not looking to detect.

There has to be something material giving off those photons. We understand how it works. An EM detector of any description detects material interactions, which ghosts isn't.

What are you saying the claim is that a ghost is for you to refute it? We know that various objects and phenomena give off EM radiation, through fluorescence, phosphorescence, black body radiation, Cherenkov radiation, etc, etc... We do not know an exhaustive list of all complex conditions or material phenomena where these effects might arise, as even Carroll mentions (43m 38s)

 

[Snorkio]

And do you have a mechanism the size of a planet generating these targeted zilbot beams? Because the LHC is creating zero of them, and the LHC is far, far outside the scale of normal human interactions.

Don't answer!

If you provide a mechanism, you are labeled a crackpot;

If you don't, you are dismissed,

If you point out many current mechanics are unknown, you are back at crackpot.

It's the Kobayashi Maru of QFT questions.

To quote Tsig's quote "The only way to win is not to play."

I was debating whether or not to reply to this, as these discussions usually devolve.

Basically, as must be clear from the posts, the "Zilbot" is an entirely hypothetical particle, and I am not a particle physicist, nor someone with a crackpot theory of woo to promote, so I can't reasonably have a scientifically valid claim that would be backed up by any evidence.

Remember that the discussion of this "Zilbot" particle was brought up by Carroll himself and he was using it to illustrate that certain effects were ruled out by our current understanding of physics, which is very different than saying there is no evidence for insert-your-woo-here.

I am disputing whether it is in fact ruled out versus being unlikely or we don't know how it could happen.

Hopefully that is clear enough.



If you want a crack-pot explanation for this hypothetical particle in this debate then: Zilbot particles carry the "zilcharge" vector in the Zil field in Hilbert space. There are clouds of Zilbot particles in the universe called Zilcouds, which are the mass of planets which make up a percentage of that dark matter in the universe and as the galactic disk rotates through the galactic dark matter halo we stir up the zilclouds, as a zilcoud moves through the surface of the Earth (attracted by gravity since Zilbots have mass), an equal zilcharge, but of opposite polarity, is induced on the Earth's surface underneath the cloud (due to the presence of human brain waves which interact with Zil field unlike other EM waves due to a spontaneous symmetry break at everyday brain energies). The induced positive surface zilcharge, when measured against a fixed point (inside a human brain), will be small as the zilcloud approaches, increasing as the center of the zilcloud arrives and dropping as the zilcoud passes. The referential value of the induced surface zilcharge could be roughly represented as a bell curve. The oppositely charged regions create a zilfield within the space between them. This zilfield varies in relation to the strength of the surface zilcharge on the base of the zilcloud – the greater the accumulated zilcharge, the higher the zilfield. The "Zilbolt" is the dis-zilcharge of the oppositely zilcharged zilbots which flow to the surface to equalize the zilcharge.

 

[Snorkio]

...even though I am pretty much an atheist, but I find it what Carroll said remarkable and I don't really hear the same kind of definitive, certainty coming from other physicists at all. So either other physicists agree and for some reason generally don’t get their hands dirty with these topics, or Carroll may have an outsider viewpoint or hubris? which to be honest, I haven’t really seen much evidence either way in this thread, on how mainstream his interpretation of these facts really are.

I am curious since this hasn't been addressed if anyone has some comment. What is peculiar to me, is that the Standard Model was pretty much defined in the 1970s, the Higgs particle discovery only validates a prediction of the standard model, it doesn't change any prior understanding. There have been particle accelerators and colliders around for decades that can create the energies of our "everyday world" and see the forces and particles at work according to current theories or understanding. So there really is nothing new that Carroll is mentioning in his arguments that should have been known to all particle physicists for decades. If his arguments are accepted and unassailable then that is one of the most dramatic change of human world view that I can possibly think of as it pretty much invalidates all of the worlds religions. That should be a pretty big deal right? Why is it just we hear about it in this talk in a Skepticon conference?

Has anyone read Carroll's book? What do other physicists say?

 

[PixyMisa]

So my point was that there could be various particles and or forces that we are indeed creating but are not detecting, whether from being weak, or perhaps a neutrally charged particle that we're not looking to detect.

And such particles can't possibly be relevant to our everyday lives.

We know that various objects and phenomena give off EM radiation, through fluorescence, phosphorescence, black body radiation, Cherenkov radiation, etc, etc...

Which ghosts isn't.

 

[PixyMisa]

I am disputing whether it is in fact ruled out versus being unlikely or we don't know how it could happen.

It's ruled out in the precise sense that the Moon being made of cheese is ruled out.

If you were to seriously propose that the Moon might be made of cheese and we just hadn't noticed, people would laugh at you. People should laugh at you.

This is the same.

 

[PixyMisa]

What do other physicists say?

Mostly they say, "Ghosts? ESP? Are you nuts? I have work to do."

And then they hang up.

 

[dlorde]

What is peculiar to me, is that the Standard Model was pretty much defined in the 1970s, the Higgs particle discovery only validates a prediction of the standard model, it doesn't change any prior understanding.

As I understand it, the Standard Model depended on the Higgs particle. That it has been predicted and found means there is far more certainty about the bounds within which the Standard Model is correct. If it had not been found within the predicted energy range, it would have been a serious blow to the SM.

 

[Snorkio]

And such particles can't possibly be relevant to our everyday lives.

Circular logic, this is what I am disputing.

Which ghosts isn't.

I'm not following you anymore, will you elaborate? So if the ghost investigator makes a claim that they have evidence of a ghost in a photo (as they explicitly claim ghosts can be captured by cameras and video equipment), you're position is that the photo isn't real? I think a more rational explanation is that there was an explainable phenomena that produced the artifact in the image, whether it be reflection, spec of dust in the lense or maybe something more unusual, cosmic rays?

 

[PixyMisa]

Circular logic

Nope.

this is what I am disputing.

Not very effectively.

If these forces are too weak for use to notice, they're too weak for us to notice. That makes it impossible for those forces to account for claims of supernatural phenomena.

I'm not following you anymore, will you elaborate? So if the ghost investigator makes a claim that they have evidence of a ghost in a photo (as they explicitly claim ghosts can be captured by cameras and video equipment), you're position is that the photo isn't real?

No.

I think a more rational explanation is that there was an explainable phenomena that produced the artifact in the image, whether it be reflection, spec of dust in the lense or maybe something more unusual, cosmic rays?

Obviously.

It's not a ghost, because those are impossible. It's also not new physics, because in the everyday world, that's also impossible.

 

[Snorkio]

Mostly they say, "Ghosts? ESP? Are you nuts? I have work to do."

And then they hang up.

ESP and Ghosts aren't a fundamental part of the world's religions. The afterlife is, which is what I was specifically referring to.

Maybe a partial reason is alluded to from Richard Dawkins where he asks a similar request in The God Delusion (p.19)

Nevertheless, I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sense. The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.

If physicists invoke God in a different way than what ordinary people mean, then they may not see ruling out the afterlife as a "big deal". That would be a monumental oversight, or even a deliberate misleading of the public.

 

[Snorkio]

Nope.


Not very effectively.

Yes.

If these forces are too weak for use to notice, they're too weak for us to notice. That makes it impossible for those forces to account for claims of supernatural phenomena.

Not necessarily, see earlier posts on ways in which Carrolls argument has flaws.

No.

Photos are illusory?

Obviously.

It's not a ghost, because those are impossible. It's also not new physics, because in the everyday world, that's also impossible.

What are you saying a ghost is?

 

[Snorkio]

As I understand it, the Standard Model depended on the Higgs particle. That it has been predicted and found means there is far more certainty about the bounds within which the Standard Model is correct. If it had not been found within the predicted energy range, it would have been a serious blow to the SM.

I agree with you, but I think the crux of the argument Carroll was making was that we didn't even need to know all the answers in physics because we knew all about the physics of the every day world (which I guess is a kind of arbitrary distinction, since our world interacts with higher energy things like stars, nuclear reactors, etc..)

Standard Model still has problems so that physicists are actively looking for other theories to supersede it, such as the various flavors of super-symmetry, string theory/M-theory etc...But despite that, Carroll is claiming we can already rule out all these effects or phenomena without solving all the other problems of physics as they deal with much more extreme conditions, either small-scale or high energy, in black holes.

 

[SusanB-M1]

What are you saying a ghost is?

Pixy Misa's views on ghosts are quite clear as far as I'm concerned. They do not exist. So it is no good asking what a ghost 'is', since it is simply not.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not necessarily, see earlier posts on ways in which Carrolls argument has flaws.

There are no such posts in this thread so far. Sorry.

Photos are illusory?

What part of "no" did you not understand?

What are you saying a ghost is?

This definition will do:

In traditional belief and fiction, a ghost ... is the soul or spirit of a dead person or animal that can appear, in visible form or other manifestation, to the living.

So, not a gamma ray. Not Cherenkov radiation. Not bioluminescence or whatever.

Souls don't exist. Spirits don't exist. Things that don't exist can't appear. Therefore, what ghosts are, as Susan so aptly put it, is not.

 

[PixyMisa]

I agree with you, but I think the crux of the argument Carroll was making was that we didn't even need to know all the answers in physics because we knew all about the physics of the every day world (which I guess is a kind of arbitrary distinction, since our world interacts with higher energy things like stars, nuclear reactors, etc..)

None of which are relevant to the point.

Standard Model still has problems so that physicists are actively looking for other theories to supersede it, such as the various flavors of super-symmetry, string theory/M-theory etc...

None of which are relevant to the point.

But despite that, Carroll is claiming we can already rule out all these effects or phenomena without solving all the other problems of physics as they deal with much more extreme conditions, either small-scale or high energy, in black holes.

He isn't "claiming" this; he is explaining the Nobel-prize-winning work of Kenneth Wilson on renormalization groups that shows that none of these things can possibly be relevant. Carroll explained this very carefully. Go back and watch the video again.

 

[dlorde]

I agree with you, but I think the crux of the argument Carroll was making was that we didn't even need to know all the answers in physics because we knew all about the physics of the every day world (which I guess is a kind of arbitrary distinction, since our world interacts with higher energy things like stars, nuclear reactors, etc..)

What Carroll says is that the discovery of the Higgs has confirmed QFT to the extent that we can be confident of its accuracy within the known bounds he describes. These bounds include the everyday energies and scales relevant to humans. Consequently we now know with confidence what particles and forces are relevant and, in that respect, what is and is not possible at these everyday energies and scales. He explains quite clearly why forces and particles outside the bounds of confidence are not relevant and can be ignored.

Standard Model still has problems so that physicists are actively looking for other theories to supersede it, such as the various flavors of super-symmetry, string theory/M-theory etc...But despite that, Carroll is claiming we can already rule out all these effects or phenomena without solving all the other problems of physics as they deal with much more extreme conditions, either small-scale or high energy, in black holes.

Yes, they can be ruled out within the bounds of everyday energies and scales, for reasons he makes explicit.

If you have a problem with those reasons, why not save us all a lot of time and explain how or why you think they are incorrect?